User blog:TheReturnOfTheKing/A new world 3
The stream-of-consciousness brainstorm thing fell through, since I don't currently have time to devote to long sessions of brainstorming. Therefore, I need to think of a different method for developing my world. I think I may not use the undeveloped gas giant, since it seems a bit too close to the dense atmosphere/low gravity/near to sun combo I've been trying to avoid. What to do instead? Something interesting. I was thinking about using a world with boron-based life, but boron is cosmically rare and the forces which create it are poorly understood. Iron-based life? That could work, but what would a world of ferrous life be like? Actually, maybe I'm focusing too much on gimmicks. I mean, just saying "oh, my world has iron-based life" can't make up for actual development and creation. Maybe the world's design doesn't matter as much as what I do with it. I could make it similar to Earth, but that'd be a cop-out. Maybe I could make it a bit like old-fashioned views of Venus or Mars? I could make it a slightly warmer, wetter Mars, call it Barsoom and move on. Big Australia? No, but good analogy. OK, I'm runnin' with this. A desert world might be a bit limited, but life only gets interesting if you put it under a bit of pressure. If the conditions are perfect for life as we know it, things get predictable and rather dull. In a difficult world, on the other hand, one must adapt to survive, and that means evolution, and that could mean intelligence. Excellent, job done. Welcome to Barsoom! Well, maybe I should come up with something more original for the name, but I'm sure you get the idea. So, ironically enough, right after denouncing brainstorming as a viable means of making this world, I just did exactly that. Huh. I guess I wasn't paying attention. I tend to do that. In all seriousness, though, I have an interesting idea for how this world might work. It's a very dry place with very low-lying seas. Much of what used to be seabed is dry land, and the continents are highlands. Due to a variety of factors that I'm going to think up at some point (heat, dense atmosphere, variations in air pressure, water vapour in the atmosphere fuelling storms or some/all of the above) there are very strong winds on this planet. These winds have been eating away at the edges of the continents for millions of years, forming sand. Sand grains bite away at the rock, forming more sand, which removes more rock, producing more sand, removing more rock, and I think you get the idea. As a result, vast deserts, veritable seas of sand, have formed. So why, I hear you ask, haven't the continental highlands been destroyed over time, eroded away until nothing remains? Bear with me here. The sand blows in the wind, but it also obeys the law of gravity, flowing downhill. Logically, the lowest points are also where the seas are found. Once the sand flows into the sea, it sinks to the seafloor, and over thousands, even millions, of years, it builds up to form sandstone. But the thing about Barsoom is, it's tectonically active still. The continental plates subduct the oceanic ones, and the sandstone they carried under with them is exposed to great heat and pressure before returning to the surface via volcanoes in the form of quartzite. Meanwhile, at the edges between continental and oceanic plates, mountains are formed, mountains made predominantly of sandstone. The quartzite forms the core of the continent while the sandstone for,s the edges. This sandstone is weathered away to form more sand, so the cycle carries on. Just to clarify, the reason the continental highlands aren't destroyed is that all the material they lose is returned to them. For all the sandstone that is lost to the sea of sand that covers much of the planet, more sandstone is built up to replace it and that sand circulates back to it's point of origin. There are some fairly obvious reasons why this probably wouldn't work, such as the fact that the speed of erosion would vastly outpace the build-up of quartzite and sandstone (although the same problem exists on Earth and we've still got our mountains) and my plans to make this a relatively low-grav world would hamper the downhill pace of the sand and reduce tectonic activity (unless I add a fairly large moon, which could help stimulate the core and introduce "sand tides" but might complicate sand movement unnecessarily) but it's definitely a nice thought. Constructive criticism strongly appreciated. Wink wink, nudge nudge… Incidentally, random but moderately useful links for the win! Where would life develop? Well, the continental highlands, though probably fairly bare by our standards (widespread quartzite means little soil, although dirt is made partly of sand and there's plenty of that to go around) would be oases of stability in a tumultuous and ever-changing landscape, not to mention geographical isolation (difficult to pull off in a dense atmosphere, which would encourage flight, but no pressure). Altogether, I imagine they would be home to a variety of unique life-forms. The poles would be promising, since their low temperatures would mean uncharacteristically high levels of water. I imagine this would be where many civilizations would develop. However, what really excites me is the potential of the landlocked seas. Not only would they harbour most of the planet's water, the constant influx of minerals in the form of sand would allow marine life to flourish. These seas would be crucibles, unique melting pots where, unlike on Earth, unique life-forms can develop. Here, there was no single conquest of the land. There were many conquerers, and those courageous few who braved the sand brought their unique traits and origins with them. Life would be incredibly varied. In fact, who's to say that life couldn't have developed independently multiple times in the seas? The sheer possibility for diversity here is endless. Of course, we must ask ourselves why. Why, if you could stay in the warm, mineral-rich, bountiful seas, would you even think about living in a deadly world of sand and sun? Well, remember that this world is still tectonically active. The continental plates are moving, crushing the smaller oceanic ones between them. However, as new oceanic plates form in the spaces between the separating continents, so do new seas as the old ones move and shift and flow into new hollows and depressions. The continents aren't what's moving here; it's the seas! During this tumultuous process, surely, at some point, there was a sea which didn't escape the crushing grasp of the continents and was subducted, or one which got too warm and evaporated, or one that simply faded into the sand. Regardless of when, how or why, a sea got wiped off the map, and the denizens would've been forced to adapt to a life on land. Failing that, I could just say there were predators and some prey went onto land to escape them. The transition to land probably could've been accomplished via quicksand which would probably surround the seas. These quicksand shallows might've sheltered small, agile creatures looking to escape larger ones, whose mobility would've been restricted by the sand grains. Over time, the quicksand shallows could've developed into a full ecosystem, and perhaps swimming creatures could've evolved into burrowing ones as they ventured further and further from their seas. Finally, they could've poked their heads above the sand and seen the sun (or suns, I might make this a binary system.) So, I've rambled long enough. If anyone actually read through all that, congratulations! You will be awarded an imaginary Internet cookie which has no taste whatsoever. In all seriousness, though, could the world I have in mind exist? Is it even remotely plausible? Let me know in the comments below. If you'll excuse me, it's probably quite obvious by now I had pretty much zero sleep last night, so I'm going to take a well-needed nap. Fantastic! Allons-y! Geronimo! 01:51, November 7, 2014 (UTC) Category:Blog posts